shortridge

Yeah, I knew when I wrote the no-indoor-meetings line that it wasn't practical. It's not in my area, at least - we don't get a lot of snow, but it gets really darn cold and dark in the winter. But I think it should be the goal. There would certainly be a lot more planning sessions for full campouts conducted on weekend winter hikes. You can make assignments, develop program schedules and coordinate stuff just as easily clustered around a warming campfire as you can at a folding table with metal chairs at the VFW post. If skills are taught and practiced only indoors - first aid, compass use, knot-tying - then they become just oddities and curiosities, divorced from the real-world environment where we have to use them. Tying a clove hitch to start a lashing on a signaling tower is much different from tying a clove hitch on a broomstick in the church hall.

Of course it's wrong - IMHO, it would look positively silly. No one's argued otherwise. But if you go to this young man citing rules, regs and page numbers, his opinion of you is going to drop measurably. Is it worth it to prove yourself right? Please note that no one said that your troop is boring. I asked the question why this Scout wants his Scouting identity to be beyond the troop. Could it be that the troop program is boring *to him*? Or that it no longer offers the type of personal challenges or adult interaction that he wants or needs? You won't know unless you go ask him, and *listen* to his answers. Lead the conversation gently around to a question of why he wants to wear two colors of loops. Remind him that all Scouts and Scouters are supposed to wear one color, befitting their registration. Then get into the nitty-gritty of what he saw at NYLT that obviously made a huge impression on him, what he sees at the district level that could help your troop, and what he'd change if he were in charge. I daresay you'll get some pretty good insights. But charging forward with the uniform rulebook in your hand won't accomplish that.

I'm far from Scouting age and don't have a pipeline into the youthful mind. But here's what I see the core changes as being: >> Challenges of skill, not rote bookwork. If a boy was designing the list of Eagle-required MBs, it would include Orienteering, Backpacking, Wilderness Survival and Small-Boat Sailing over Family Life, Personal Management and the Citizenships. FL and PM, in fact, wouldn't even *be* badges. >> A practical, rugged, BDU-style uniform, one that you can wear to go crawling in the mud, toss in the washing machine and forget about it. Patrol patches, troop numbers, position/rank badges, and that's it. >> No indoor "troop meetings." In fact, no "meetings" period. Adventures, treks, missions, projects, hikes, expeditions ... everything focused around getting outside regularly. >> As few adults involved as possible. No troop campouts where ASMs outnumber the boys.

If this young man wants his public Scouting identity to be beyond the troop level - thus the different loops and the district patch - odds are the troop program no longer holds any interest for him. I'm just guessing here, though, based on my own experiences. When I hit 14 and 15 and got active in the OA and on camp staff, my troop was boring. I was only barely active. I saw a larger world beyond the insularity of my troop and the church meeting room. There was a district, a chapter, a council, a lodge! You could rub shoulders with people several districts away, talk to them, learn from them, and lead them. Coordinating service projects at my council camp for 100+ Arrowmen made making work schedules for my troop's spaghetti dinner look dull. Rather than slam this boy down for his unorthodox uniform approach, have a conversation with him. Ask him why he wants to wear that insignia rather than his troop insignia. Have the leadership challenges in the troop faded for him? What could the troop do to make him more interested? Look at it this way. You have a boy who knows what a district is and wants to serve. How many other boys fall into those categories? Do you really want to stunt this Scout's journey because you don't like the color of his shoulder loops? ========== ReneScout: FYI, Varsity Scouting is not an LDS program. It's open to anyone.

The last Democratic primary challenge to an incumbent was in 1980, when Ted Kennedy primaried Jimmy Carter. The last Republican primary challenge to an incumbent was in 1992, when Pat Buchanan challenged George W. Bush. And we all know how the Kennedy and Buchanan administrations went. A primary challenge to a sitting president has never succeeded, not even in '76, when Gerry Ford was incredibly weakened. There's also the question, from the Democratic point of view, of whether the impact of a primary challenge would weaken Obama sufficiently that the GOP could win. Not even Bernie Sanders and other critics of the White House would want a Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry in charge. And besides, the practical politicians out there are looking at the GOP field and thinking that the Republicans are likely going to implode over the next few months, torn apart on core issues, and not likely going to be able to unify and present a significant threat to Obama's re-election. The thinking then goes: So why jeopardize a Democrat? Even if he isn't everything that you want, he's still better than the alternative. These aren't my opinions, just my analysis of the situation.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

I've seen adults who are more "into" their practice of da silly OA rituals and membership than they are of their supposedly "genuine" faith... Interesting observation. The vast majority of the adults I've met in the Order are into the friendship and fellowship aspects, rather than the ceremonies and rituals. They're there to drink coffee, buy patches, hobnob with friends they haven't seen in a while. Along the way, they'll dig fenceposts, re-shingle roofs, bang in some nails, etc. - service is seen as the price of admission. In fact, I can't really recall ever meeting adults who were "into" the rituals over all else. The ceremonies and symbolism are really a way to catch a young Scout's attention. We use ceremonies in Scouting for other things that aren't objectionable - presenting awards, honoring our country, recognizing leadership, etc. The only thing different about OA ceremonies is that they're more or less restricted, and they involve American Indian symbology.

Color me confused, but some statements here have left me befuddled. happens when you choose your friends to be the PLC making PLC membership "special" and not automatic Since shen does the SPL appoint the PLC? It's the Patrol Leaders' Council, which means the PLs, the SPL, and perhaps the troop guide. It's not the Troop Leaders' Council - it doesn't automatically include the quartermaster, historian, scribe, webmaster, etc.

Beavah, I totally see your point about the structure of Scouting, and about court cases involving a specific situation. But BSA made it clear through its statements in the Dale case that a ban on gays *is* a national policy. Its own legal brief stated: "Boy Scouts believe that homosexual conduct is not 'morally straight' under the Scout Oath and not 'clean' under Scout Law." No equivocation - no local option - no statements about merely being a supplier of program materials; no comments about protecting the brand. The message is clearly: "This is our organization; this is our organization's policy." My question therefore remains unanswered. Based on available information, BSA has a ban on homosexual members. Yet that national policy is not communicated to its volunteers; it's unclear whether it is communicated to the chartered organizations that use its program. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If you can tell me where I can find, in writing, the authorization for units to establish a local option on membership rules, I look forward to it.

Beavah - That "local option" point of view does not apply in this case. Irving has gone to court to defend its position, making it clear that the ban on gays is a NATIONAL POLICY, not one that local units have an option on. What I want to know - and which no one seems to be able to answer - is where is that policy written down, how is it communicated to COs, and how is it communicated to volunteers? Word of mouth and rumor do not suffice on something this big.

Oh, Brent. No one's saying that science has all the answers. What I'm simply saying is that science and theology are not the same thing. A member of the clergy does not automatically speak with any more authority on "confusing issues" than anyone else. Wearing a collar or a yarmulke does not grant wisdom. It simply means that a person has studied one very focused point of view in great depth and can explain it in detail. A priest or rabbi or imam can still be as dumb as a load of bricks about a whole range of issues. It's up to the *person*, not the position, to be knowledgeable about the world.

Six-month terms seem to be most common in units I've encountered. I'm guessing that's because it's the minimum term for PORs for Life and Eagle. I happen to think it's an awful idea, as it forces boys out right around the time they're getting their feet under them. Terms should be for a minimum of one year, IMHO. I also think we get too stuck on the idea that every troop has to have an SPL. It detracts from the role the PLC is supposed to play, and makes the SPL - not the PLs - the most important job in the troop. Not all troops should have an SPL, especially young, small troops with just one or two patrols.

Beavah, I think we really disagree on this one. Science involves positing theories and testable, recordable, repeatable events or experiments. If someone is bleeding, it can be stopped (much of the time) by applying pressure. That's a fact, and it can be proven and repeated. But a priest's assertion that wine and bread turn into the blood and body of Christ is not a fact. It cannot be tested or proven under any circumstances. It is, at best, only a theory. Theology is not a knowledge system. It is a belief system. That's not to say theology is wrong or bad. It just isn't on a level with science, because many of its claims cannot be examined.

bsalegal.org is run by a communications company (owned by Robert Bork's son) for the BSA. But that's precisely NOT the kind of source I am looking for. To get there, you'd have to do some very specific searches. I'm thinking about this issue from the perspective of a brand-new volunteer, perhaps joining a brand-new troop, who signs up, goes through training, attends Roundtables, etc. At what point is he or she officially told "We don't allow gays"? We are told about policies on tour permits, policies on unit leadership, policies on patches. But we aren't told about one of the most fundamental membership policies of the BSA. I think it's very reasonable to ask why not? (Since the policy clearly exists, and it's obviously not going to change anytime soon, I don't think those of us who argue it should be changed are risking anything by asking that it be codified and distributed through official channels, not just sent to SEs in a memo.) Perhaps more to the point, at what stage are COs told about this policy?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Scoutfish - Right. I'm not trying to rehash the debate. I'm just trying to figure out how we, as volunteers, *know* this "fact." For example, in the recent thread where some adults quizzed a boy who said he was bisexual - on what do they base their actions? Is it just a feeling or a sense that BSA doesn't like gays? Or is there actually something written down and handed to us saying "Gays aren't allowed" that I've just missed?

A pole holder that hangs off a strap or belt can be handy. I don't know where to get one; I have one from 1960. Google "flag pole carrying belt" or "flag pole harness." But check the sizing and adjustability - what fits a Boy Scout or adult won't work for a Cub.

(I'm spinning this off from the lesbian-mother thread because I think it's going to get lost.) Maybe I'm dense, or just haven't read through every single publication I've been given or purchased as a Scouting volunteer. But in which handbook or manual does it state that only heterosexuals are allowed in the BSA? In which handbook or manual are we volunteers directed to tell people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender that they can't register as leaders? Where are we told to do this? Please don't direct me to bsalegal.org. I'm talking about information that we as volunteers are given when we sign up to volunteer. When are we told this, and how are we told this? I'm asking because I don't ever *recall* being told this. It's just "one of those things" that "everyone knows." But maybe I missed something.

Frankly, I would have probably voted for him myself. So then give him a chance to do the job. Think beyond this specific situation and look at it from the boys' perspective. If you start vetoing decisions, where does it stop? It could very easily, and quickly, end up a case of "Mr. Smith doesn't trust us, so why should we try/care/do anything?"

Hailing from the great and mighty state of Delaware, and thus the Del-Mar-Va Council. Been in the same council my whole Scouting career. Cubs and Boy Scouts, camp staff for five years, OA chapter chief lodge vice-chief, Vigil honor member, now a campmaster at my local council camp. @dg - Ditto. I was able to put my profile info in, but then couldn't update it after that.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Physicians deal in facts, items that are testable and verifiable. The clergy deals with faith. Big difference.

I'm a little confused. The SPL is generally supposed to appoint the instructors, troop guides, quartermaster, historian, scribe, librarian, bugler and chaplain aide. (Some SPLs appoint the ASPL; other troops elect him.) Those are basically positions with set duties, so Scouts can be held accountable; they're not just cushy gigs, like an ambassadorship to the Bahamas. And skills clearly count - you can't put a Tenderfoot into an Instructor's job. The PLC, on the other hand, is supposed to be made up of the SPL, ASPL, patrol leaders and troop guide - not necessarily all of these appointed troopwide positions. So if your concern is that the SPL is putting inexperienced Scouts in charge of the troop, that's not the case. The patrol leaders still run the show.

I'm a huge parade fan, and my daughter loves them, too. I've noticed many groups have dropped candy. Whether because of expense or (as I've heard) fear of kids getting trampled in the mad rush for the Dum-Dums and Tootsie Rolls, I don't know. I think it's kind of sad. Every kid should go home from a parade with a few pieces of candy. But definitely keep candy in the parents' hands as CubMom suggests. "How can they be tired on a simple 1 1/2 mile parade, walking slow?" I'll bet you dollars to donuts they're not tired. They're bored. To a kid that age, that's a really long way to ... just ... walk. Throwing candy - singing songs - marching in formation - carrying & waving small flags - handing out flyers promoting the CO - taking turns holding the pack banner - etc. Lots of things you can do to keep it interesting. You do have a banner, don't you? Not just a flag? The flag often can't be seen unless it's windy. Get some crafty parents to help make a horizontal banner that can either be carried or mounted on a float. Make loops on the top and bottom and slide some PVC pipe through it (with the bottom pipe lightly weighted and capped). Helps promote pack identity and also keeps everyone together. ("You have to be able to see the banner at all times.") If you're going to do something like a tipi, decorate it with Cub symbols and the pack number. Have a fake electric campfire out in front. Jazz it up a bit. Is there a theme to the parade? P.S. If you have any pull with the organizers, get as close as you can in the lineup to the high school marching band. That'll keep them pepped up.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Check out these past threads for some ideas: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=396 http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=316741&p=1

Maybe I'm dense, or just haven't read through every single publication I've been given or purchased as a Scouting volunteer. But in which handbook or manual does it state that only heterosexuals are allowed in the BSA? In which handbook or manual are we volunteers directed to tell people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender that they can't register as leaders? Where are we told to do this? Please don't direct me to bsalegal.org. I'm talking about information that we as volunteers are given when we sign up to volunteer. When are we told this, and how are we told this? I'm asking because I don't ever *recall* being told this. It's just "one of those things" that "everyone knows." But maybe I missed something.

Not even hunting down past-due rechartering fees justifies 20 phone calls in one day. That's ridiculous.

Actually, hand sanitizer is both recommended for use as part of the WFA program and included on Philmont gear lists.